Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. It is important to emphasize in this amendment as we have drafted it includes a provision that starts out with automatic designation: That a health insurance issuer shall be deemed to be a designated decisionmaker for purposes of subparagraph (A) with respect to participants and beneficiaries of an employer or plan sponsor. That is important to emphasize, and it automatically occurs so we remove the ambiguity, extra steps, cost, and so on, with respect to that particular requirement.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, we are awaiting modifications to the underlying amendment. Unless there are any other speakers on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent that the time not be taken from either side at this point.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment that has been offered by Senator DeWine, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Nelson and send a modification to the desk.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, it is modified in the following way. First of all, the question was raised about the original intent of the amendment in regard to the self-insured, self-administered plans. Specifically, with regard to contractual dispute, it will only exempt from liability employer and union plans that are self-insured and self- regulated, again applying symmetry to all of the plans regarding self- insured and self-administered, so we do not make any exceptions. So we address that by modifying it to ensure that both employer and union plans are consistent with the legislation. Secondly, because insurance plans are already regulated at State and Federal level with regard to assets and other issues, we assure that these regulated plans are not subject to a new Federal solvency plan to qualify as a designated decisionmaker. As a result, the solvency standard in this amendment will appropriately apply to nonhealth insurance designated decisionmakers. Finally, we also make a technical correction in the legislation to ensure that the causes of action are not inadvertently opened to other statutes that are already a matter of law. This change reflects the intent of our amendment to prevent the filing of lawsuits in a broader, more undefined number of issues. I urge adoption of the modification as well as the underlying amendment. Again, I remind my colleagues that this was an effort to address many of the legitimate issues that were raised regarding employer liability. It was a consensus that was drafted along with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Nelson. I also thank Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, Senator Edwards, as well as Senator Gregg and Senator Frist, for working together to make this amendment possible. We thought it essential that we develop precise and clear guidelines in terms of how we establish employer liability but at the same time protecting patients' rights with their ability to seek legal redress when there is inappropriate care or denial of care. We think we have developed and crafted the amendment in a way that creates the bright line and the firewall so that we do provide the necessary protection to employers, so that we limit and, in fact, in most instances I think prevent any exposure to liability. They can confer that liability and risk to the designated decisionmakers and therefore they will have that kind of liability protection, and patients will have their ability to be able to sue in those instances where they have been denied care or there has been wrongful injury, personal injury, or even death. I think it strikes the right balance. The consensus represents the optimum approach to providing the kind of basis for removing an employer's exposure to litigation when they are not directly participating in medical decisions. We hope this will satisfy the concerns that have been raised by the original legislation. We think we crafted the best approach, borrowing both from the McCain-Edwards-McCain legislation as well as the Breaux- Frist-Jeffords approach. Again, I urge adoption of this amendment, as modified, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation facilitating the land conveyance at Winter Harbor, ME. First, may I note that this bill is the product of countless hours of hard work and deliberation by the communities it affects--Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro--the State of Maine, and the Maine Delegation. I would like to thank those involved: Chairmen Stan Torrey and Tom Mayor and members of the Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor Base Reuse Committees; Jean Marshall, the Defense Conversion Coordinator for Eastern Maine Development; Linda Pagels and Roger Barto, Town Managers for Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor; and Commander Edwin Williamson, Commanding Officer of Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor, for their efforts in crafting legislation that all concerned can support. The Navy has been a strong and supportive presence in the Winter Harbor region since the establishment of their facility over 80 years ago. What started as one man's patriotic efforts in World War I to establish a radio station for transatlantic communications developed into a complex network of sophisticated equipment that became Winter Harbor Naval Security Group Activity. Throughout the two World Wars and subsequent Cold War, the men and women stationed at Winter Harbor provided invaluable services in our Nation's defense. Maine and the Navy have always had a special relationship, and that relationship extended to Winter Harbor. The base and community embraced one another and developed a good neighbor relationship seldom seen between a military installation and the surrounding community. For both sides, it was truly a win-win situation. The sailors and their families enjoyed the hospitality of Maine while the towns of Winter harbor and Gouldsboro economically benefited from the Navy's presence. Unfortunately, the advent of new technology has made the equipment and mission of Winter Harbor obsolete. With the announcement that the Winter Harbor Naval Activity would close in June 2002, the communities began the laborious process of planning for life without the good neighbors of Winter Harbor NSGA. With this base closing, Maine will lose an economic base it has depended on for over 80 years. At its high point, Winter Harbor had approximately 250 sailors, 140 civilian employees, and their family members in residence and the base became an economic focal point for the region with an estimated $11 to $15 million being contributed to the local economy on an annual basis. To offset this impending loss, the towns applied for and received a small Economic Development Administration Defense Conversion Planning Grant in the amount of $200,000. While these funds proved crucial to the start of the reuse process, many needs still remain unmet. This legislation is intended to address some of those needs and to minimize the financial consequences of the base closure. The towns of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro are not looking for charity. As you will see, this legislation's intent is to reimburse the towns for infrastructure improvements made at the Navy's behest and to provide the means for the region to restore its economic viability. As I mentioned earlier, the Maine Delegation has been working with the local communities, the State, Navy, and National Park Service to develop a comprehensive plan for reuse of the property and facilities. The primary facilities at Winter Harbor are located on a beautiful and breathtaking portion of the Maine coastline known as Schoodic Point. Once the base closes, this legislation dictates that the Schoodic Point property will shift to the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction for inclusion in Acadia National Park. In preparation for this property transfer, the National Park Service has initiated a plan to establish a Research and Education Center at the site. This center will host educational programs and private and public research facilities, becoming a source for meaningful employment and economic generation for the communities. However, the National Park Service effort will not be achieved overnight and, like all programs, requires adequate funding. As such, this legislation was drafted to include financial provisions to ease and expedite this transition as well as to reimburse the community for local services and infrastructure improvements. In closing, I would like to thank all of those in the local communities, the State of Maine, the Navy, and the National Park Service and, of course, my colleagues from the Maine Delegation for their assistance in crafting this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative and allow the good people of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro to make the most of this unique base reuse opportunity. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation facilitating the land conveyance at Winter Harbor, ME. First, may I note that this bill is the product of countless hours of hard work and deliberation by the communities it affects--Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro--the State of Maine, and the Maine Delegation. I would like to thank those involved: Chairmen Stan Torrey and Tom Mayor and members of the Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor Base Reuse Committees; Jean Marshall, the Defense Conversion Coordinator for Eastern Maine Development; Linda Pagels and Roger Barto, Town Managers for Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor; and Commander Edwin Williamson, Commanding Officer of Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor, for their efforts in crafting legislation that all concerned can support. The Navy has been a strong and supportive presence in the Winter Harbor region since the establishment of their facility over 80 years ago. What started as one man's patriotic efforts in World War I to establish a radio station for transatlantic communications developed into a complex network of sophisticated equipment that became Winter Harbor Naval Security Group Activity. Throughout the two World Wars and subsequent Cold War, the men and women stationed at Winter Harbor provided invaluable services in our Nation's defense. Maine and the Navy have always had a special relationship, and that relationship extended to Winter Harbor. The base and community embraced one another and developed a good neighbor relationship seldom seen between a military installation and the surrounding community. For both sides, it was truly a win-win situation. The sailors and their families enjoyed the hospitality of Maine while the towns of Winter harbor and Gouldsboro economically benefited from the Navy's presence. Unfortunately, the advent of new technology has made the equipment and mission of Winter Harbor obsolete. With the announcement that the Winter Harbor Naval Activity would close in June 2002, the communities began the laborious process of planning for life without the good neighbors of Winter Harbor NSGA. With this base closing, Maine will lose an economic base it has depended on for over 80 years. At its high point, Winter Harbor had approximately 250 sailors, 140 civilian employees, and their family members in residence and the base became an economic focal point for the region with an estimated $11 to $15 million being contributed to the local economy on an annual basis. To offset this impending loss, the towns applied for and received a small Economic Development Administration Defense Conversion Planning Grant in the amount of $200,000. While these funds proved crucial to the start of the reuse process, many needs still remain unmet. This legislation is intended to address some of those needs and to minimize the financial consequences of the base closure. The towns of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro are not looking for charity. As you will see, this legislation's intent is to reimburse the towns for infrastructure improvements made at the Navy's behest and to provide the means for the region to restore its economic viability. As I mentioned earlier, the Maine Delegation has been working with the local communities, the State, Navy, and National Park Service to develop a comprehensive plan for reuse of the property and facilities. The primary facilities at Winter Harbor are located on a beautiful and breathtaking portion of the Maine coastline known as Schoodic Point. Once the base closes, this legislation dictates that the Schoodic Point property will shift to the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction for inclusion in Acadia National Park. In preparation for this property transfer, the National Park Service has initiated a plan to establish a Research and Education Center at the site. This center will host educational programs and private and public research facilities, becoming a source for meaningful employment and economic generation for the communities. However, the National Park Service effort will not be achieved overnight and, like all programs, requires adequate funding. As such, this legislation was drafted to include financial provisions to ease and expedite this transition as well as to reimburse the community for local services and infrastructure improvements. In closing, I would like to thank all of those in the local communities, the State of Maine, the Navy, and the National Park Service and, of course, my colleagues from the Maine Delegation for their assistance in crafting this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative and allow the good people of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro to make the most of this unique base reuse opportunity. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued by the United States Postal Service honoring the members of the Armed Forces that have been awarded the Purple Heart. The Purple Heart, our nation's oldest military decoration, was originated by General George Washington in 1782 to recognize ``instances of unusual gallantry.'' Referred to then as the Badge of Military Merit, the decoration was awarded only three times during the Revolutionary War. Following the war, the general order authorizing the ``Badge'' was misfiled for over 150 years until the War Department reactivated the decoration in 1932. The Army's then Adjutant General, Douglas MacArthur, succeeded in having the medal re-instituted in its modern form--to recognize the sacrifice our service members make when they go into harm's way. Both literally and figuratively, the Purple Heart is the world's most costly decoration. However, the 19 separate steps necessary to make the medal pale in comparison to the actions and heroics that so often lead to its award. The Department of Defense does not track the number of Purple Hearts awarded, but we do know that just over 500,000 of the veterans and military personnel that have received the medal are still living. And we also know that every single recipient served this country in one form or another; a good number of the awardees even made the ultimate sacrifice--giving their lives for the liberty and freedoms that we all enjoy and often take for granted. I am sure you will agree that these sacrifices deserve our respect and remembrance. This resolution, to express the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp honoring Purple Heart recipients should be issued by the U.S. Postal Service, is a fitting place to start. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to recognize those brave service members.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation Tax Credit Incentives Act of 2001, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Breaux, Hutchinson, Miller, Craig, Landrieu, Gordon Smith, and Collins. The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws, future growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more landowners will be forced to sell their land for some other higher economic value such as development. The loss of a healthy and strong forest products industry will have a long-term negative impact on both the economy and the environment. The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax treatment, reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture. Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based on the number of years the asset is held. The bill would change the way that capital gains are calculated for timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting three percent for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be capped at 50 percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 10 percent for non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for corporations. Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset, making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and inflationary gain in timber. In 1986, the capital gains tax was repealed for all taxpayers. The 1997 tax bill reinstituted the lower capital gains rate for individuals, but not for businesses. As a result, individuals face a maximum capital gains rate of 20 percent, while businesses face a maximum rate of 35 percent for the identical asset. As this difference in rates implies, private timberland owners receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the disparity that companies face. Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S. domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs, Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes to taxation. This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to receive a tax credit. The legislation removes the current dollar limitation of the $10,000 amount of reforestation expenses that are eligible for the ten percent tax credit and that are allowed to be deducted, and decreases from 7 to 5 years the amortization period over which these expenses can be deducted. Eligible reforestation expenses would be the initial expenses to establish a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to care for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of equipment used in reforestation. The planting of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways, providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the major greenhouse gas causing climate change according to the majority of renowned international scientists. Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands, allowing these public lands to be protected. I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of our economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation Tax Credit Incentives Act of 2001, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Breaux, Hutchinson, Miller, Craig, Landrieu, Gordon Smith, and Collins. The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws, future growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more landowners will be forced to sell their land for some other higher economic value such as development. The loss of a healthy and strong forest products industry will have a long-term negative impact on both the economy and the environment. The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax treatment, reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture. Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based on the number of years the asset is held. The bill would change the way that capital gains are calculated for timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting three percent for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be capped at 50 percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 10 percent for non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for corporations. Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset, making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and inflationary gain in timber. In 1986, the capital gains tax was repealed for all taxpayers. The 1997 tax bill reinstituted the lower capital gains rate for individuals, but not for businesses. As a result, individuals face a maximum capital gains rate of 20 percent, while businesses face a maximum rate of 35 percent for the identical asset. As this difference in rates implies, private timberland owners receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the disparity that companies face. Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S. domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs, Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes to taxation. This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to receive a tax credit. The legislation removes the current dollar limitation of the $10,000 amount of reforestation expenses that are eligible for the ten percent tax credit and that are allowed to be deducted, and decreases from 7 to 5 years the amortization period over which these expenses can be deducted. Eligible reforestation expenses would be the initial expenses to establish a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to care for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of equipment used in reforestation. The planting of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways, providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the major greenhouse gas causing climate change according to the majority of renowned international scientists. Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands, allowing these public lands to be protected. I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of our economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan conference report on the fiscal year 2002 tax cut reconciliation package that provides much needed tax relief for the American people, including a provision that I and Senator Lincoln and others fought to retain: a new refundable per child tax credit for low-income, working families. I first want to thank and commend Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for working so closely together to develop a fair and balanced tax bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 62 to 38 last week--and for fighting to retain the structure and focus of that package so effectively in the ensuing House-Senate conference. Because of their efforts--and the manner in which they so successfully defended the Senate's position--I believe the conference report we are now considering deserves at least the same level of bipartisan support as the original Senate bill, and urge its adoption. No package could truly be said to produce fairness without including a refundable child tax credit. That's why, as part of the original Senate package, I worked with Senators Lincoln, Kerry and Breaux--as well as both the Chairman and Ranking Member--to include a provision that builds on the President's proposal to double the $500 per child tax credit by making it refundable to those earning $10,000 or more, retroactive to the beginning of this year. That's why I offered an amendment last week that called for the retention of this provision in the House-Senate conference--an amendment that was adopted by a vote of 94 to 4. And that's why, during the conference, I continued to fight to retain this provision in the face of strong resistence by detractors. Through these efforts--and because of the unyielding support of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus--families earning the minimum wage will be able to receive a refundable per child tax credit for the first time. Let there be no mistake, this is introducing a wholly new concept with respect to that child tax credit, and one that is most assuredly warranted. How will this help? In its original form, the tax relief plan would not have reached all full-time workers--the tax reduction would have disappeared for wage-earners with net incomes of less than about $22,000. Indeed, without refundability, there are almost 16 million children whose families would not benefit from the doubling of the Child Tax Credit. To give an idea of how many children we're really talking about, that's about twice the population of New York City or about thirteen times the entire population of my home State of Maine. Thanks to this provision, the bill now provides a substantial tax credit to a total of 37 million families and 55 million children nationwide who might otherwise have gained no benefit from the proposal to simply double the per-child credit. Many of these are families earning minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet in addition to paying their share of State and local taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, phone taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. All told, the average full-time worker earning the minimum wage pays more than $1,530 in payroll taxes, and more than $300 in federal excise taxes. This is no small burden to working families already living on the fiscal edge. In fact, despite America's strong economy, one in six children live in poverty, and the number of low-income children living with a working parent continues to climb. My provision to make the child tax credit refundable will give these families a hand up as they strive for self-sufficiency, and give these kids the hope of a childhood without poverty. When fully phased-in, the partially refundable credit will provide a benefit of up to 15 cents on every dollar earned above $10,000 per year, adjusted for inflation. Likewise, the maximum refundable credit will rise from $500 to $600 this year, increasing to $1,000 by 2011. Families with more than one child would also receive a refundable credit based on their income. Will this tax relief solve all the financial problems faced by eligible families? No. But it will help to purchase essentials, like groceries, heating fuel, or electricity. And it sends an important message of encouragement that we want those who work hard and strive to improve their lives to succeed. Refundability shows that tax relief is for all full-time working families. With these kinds of adjustments, we take a critical first step in ensuring that the balance of this package in its totality will help lower and middle income taxpayers. The fact of the matter is that the case for tax cuts has never been more compelling. As a percent of GDP, federal taxes are at their highest level, 20.6 percent, since 1944--and all previous record levels occurred during time of war or during the devastating recession of the early-1980s, when interest rates exceeded 20 percent and the highest marginal tax rate was 70 percent. The fact of the matter is, it would be irresponsible not to return a reasonable portion of the surplus--which is really just an overpayment in the form of taxes--to the American taxpayer. And there should be no mistake--if we fail to enact meaningful relief package, we will fail both working families and the economy upon which their work depends. And let us not forget that this package is nearly 25 percent smaller than was proposed by President Bush in his budget. Let us not forget that it will utilize less than one-half of the projected surplus over the coming 10 years, 45.7 percent, excluding both Social Security and Medicare surpluses. In fact, even with a $1.25 trillion tax cut over the coming ten years, we will still have about $1.5 trillion available for other priorities, including the funding of a new prescription drug benefit and additional debt reduction. This package is neither unreasonable nor irresponsible. Just as importantly, many of us fought hard to ensure that the benefits of this tax cut package will be weighted toward those who need relief the most--middle and lower-income taxpayers--and that weighting has been retained. We have before us a thoughtful proposal that addresses concerns I, myself, had with the distributional effects of the original package. And it does so in a variety of meaningful ways--retroactively creating a new ``ten percent'' bracket, providing much-needed AMT relief for middle-income families, and ensuring marriage penalty relief for all couples while bolstering the Earned Income Tax Credit. And that's not all. The bipartisan education package that the Finance Committee reported in March is included in this bill, along with a new deduction of up to $4,000 for higher education tuition paid--a provision that I sought along with Senators Torricelli and Schumer. With the cost of college quadrupling over the past 20 years--a rate nearly twice as fast as inflation--this provision will provide critical assistance to individuals and families grappling with higher education costs. It also includes the bipartisan IRA and pension package--introduced separately by Senators Grassley and Baucus that will not only strengthen and improve access to pensions and IRA's, but also enhance fairness for women who frequently leave the workforce during prime earnings years, and suffer from reduced retirement savings accordingly. Again, this is a balanced and fair package. In looking at the various analyses of the changes we made to the package, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that those earning less than $50,000 will see their share of federal taxes drop from 14.3 percent under current law to 14 percent in 2006. Conversely, in the same year, the share of federal taxes paid by those with incomes of $100,000 or more will increase from 58.4 percent to 58.7 percent. Moreover, as a result of the refundability of the child tax credit, according to Joint Tax, those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income range will see their share of federal taxes reduced from 1.5 percent to 1.4 percent--a reduction of $3 billion. And by 2006, this level is down to 1.1 percent. And in terms of the overall package, it is worth noting that creation of the new 10 pecent bracket accounts for $421 billion, while reductions in all other brackets amount to $420 billion--that's 50 percent of the cuts going to the lowest bracket alone. As for the compromise we developed that results in a reduction of the uppermost bracket from 39.6 to 35 percent, it's worth noting that many individuals in that bracket are small business owners whose business- related income is taxed as personal income. According to the Treasury Department, in 2006, 63 percent of the tax returns that would benefit from reducing marginal rates in the top two brackets would be reporting some income or loss from a business. And in my home State of Maine, for example, about 97 percent of all businesses are small business. The reality is, small businesses have played a central role in our Nation's economic expansion. From 1992 to 1996, for example, small firms created 75 percent of new jobs--up 10.5 percent--while large- company employment grew by 3.7 percent. So why--when we're talking about such a tremendous impact on individuals and the economy--when the top corporate tax rate is 35 percent--why should we continue making small business men and women pay more? And let's face it, the economic impact of this tax cut cannot be dismissed. In fact, given the warning signs in our economy, I believe the timing of this tax package is fortuitous. One Business Week article spoke of a terrible first quarter, stating that ``The earnings of the 900 companies on Business Week's Corporate Scoreboard plummeted 25 percent from a year earlier--The first quarter profit plunge was the Scoreboard's sharpest quarterly drop since the 1990-91 recession.'' Productivity fell at a 0.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter-- the first quarterly drop in six years. And layoffs are at their highest levels since they were first tracked in 1993, with major corporations announcing more than 572,000 job cuts this year. Little wonder, then, that the unemployment rate has risen to 4.5 percent, with April's job loss the largest since February 1991. Even more ominous is Business Week's recent observation that if wide layoffs of high wage earners continue, the likelihood of recession becomes even greater. And the Washington Post noted recently that Federal Reserve cuts in interest rates have been the most aggressive since the second quarter of 1982--the worst recession since the great depression--and that observation came before the most recent half-percent rate cut. And while it is true that a tax cut may not actually prevent a recession, if one is in the offing, I well remember the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who came before the Finance Committee in January. Chairman Greenspan stated that tax cuts, while perhaps not having an immediate effect, could act as ``insurance'' should our recent downturn prove to be more than an inventory correction--that it could soften the landing and shorten the duration of any recession should it occur. And let's keep this in mind as well--``blue chip'' economists have indicated just this week that they are factoring the tax cut in their projections. Given our growing economic uncertainty and the grim repercussions it could have, I am pleased that--as I urged on the floor last week and in a letter to the Senate conferees--the final conference report ensures that even more money will be in the hands of taxpayers this year than was originally anticipated in the Senate bill. Specifically, by providing for the delivery of refund checks to taxpayers this fall-- $300 for single taxpayers and $600 for couples--tax relief will be accelerated during the current year, and hopefully help get the economy back on track. I think the American public often thinks about tax cuts the way they would think of winning the lottery--it would be great if it really happened, but it in reality it really only happens for ``the other guy''--that tax cuts will only apply to someone else--and if they do happen, they'll be so small as to have no appreciable effect on everyday life. Well, the American people should know that this tax cut applies to everyone, and especially those who could use the break the most. And that's true not just on paper, but in reality--in the real world. This is no phantom tax cut--this is real, this is balanced, and this is fair. And what this all comes down to is, if you're really serious about cutting taxes, you should support this package that begins the process of providing some relief given, once again, the status of our economy and the tax burden on the American people. We know we're never going to get unanimity on an issue of this magnitude. But we can have progress and we can come to some kind of consensus. This package represents a bipartisan effort that, in the aggregate, is good for our future and good for the American taxpayer today. And it deserves our support. Thank you very much.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation. Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000 lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 mariners in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects thousands of other people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial fishing activities, and recreational boating. The Coast Guard enforces Federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, the Coast Guard provides a critical component of the nation's defense strategy. The Coast Guard has joined with the Navy under the National Fleet Policy Statement to integrate their complementary offshore assets and enhance our national defense. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 was enacted on November 13, 1992 and authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. Last year, I spend a considerable amount of time trying to enact meaningful legislation to reauthorize the Coast Guard. To that end, the Commerce Committee and the Senate unanimously passed the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000 in July of 2000. Unfortunately, final enactment of the bill was derailed by one provision that had nothing to do with the Coast Guard itself and was outside the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. As a result, the dedicated and hard-working men and women in uniform were penalized. The Coast Guard deserves more. By introducing the Coast Guard bill today, I intend to give them my full support, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the support that they have so clearly earned. For the second year in a row, the Coast Guard has announced that it will reduce routine non-emergency operations by at least 10 percent. The Administration's Budget request for fiscal year 2002 would leave the Coast Guard $250 million short in critical operating funds. This shortfall will necessitate operations cutbacks to include decommissioning ships and aircraft. The budget authorized in this bill would restore those funding shortfalls and prevent the need for operational cutbacks. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today authorizes funding and personnel levels for the Coast Guard in fiscal years 2000 through 2002. The bill authorizes funding for FY 2002 at $5.2 billion. This represents a 9.3 percent increase over the levels contained in last year's Senate-passed bill authorization and a 14 percent increase over the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The bill also contains several provisions to provide greater flexibility on personnel management matters and critical readiness concerns within the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard bill contains a new initiative on fishing vessel safety training. Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous professions in the United States. Over the last three years, over two hundred fishermen have died at sea and even more fishing vessels have been lost. Last year, the Maine fleet tragically lost ten fishermen. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to work with and support local organizations that promote or provide fishing vessel safety training. Under this proposal, active duty Coast Guard personnel, Coast Guard Reserve, and members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary could serve as instructors for training and safety courses; assist in the development of curricula; and participate in relevant advisory panels. This new initiative allows discretionary participation by the agency on a not- to-interfere basic with other Congressionally mandated missions. A major part of the Coast Guard's law enforcement mission remains interdicting illegal narcotics at sea. In 2000, the Coast Guard seized 56 vessels and arrested 201 suspects transporting illegal narcotics headed for our shores. The U.S. Coast Guard set a cocaine seizure record for the second consecutive year by stopping 132,920 pounds of cocaine from reaching American streets, playgrounds, and schools. The Coast Guard also seized 50,463 pounds of marijuana products, including hashish and hashish oil. At $4.4 billion, the street value of the drugs seized last year nearly matched the entire Coast Guard budget. In 2000, the Cost Guard also introduced the highly successful Operation New Frontier force package, including specially armed helicopters, over-the-horizon pursuit boats, and the use of non-lethal tools to stop go-fast type smuggling boats. Operation New Frontier forces documented an unprecedented 100 percent success rate by seizing all six of the go-fast trafficking boats detected. This bill provides funding to maintain many of the new drug interdiction initiatives of the past few years. The Coast Guard has proven time and again its ability to efficiently stem the tide of drugs entering our nation through water routes. The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for preventing and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year. The recent oil spill in the fragile Galapagos Islands is an example where our investment in the Coast Guard reaped international rewards. Within 24 hours of the spill, a team of Coast Guard oil spill professionals were on transport aircraft en route to the spill scene with cleanup equipment. Their presence limited the ecological damage of this potentially horrific environmental tragedy. One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking services. The FY 2000 budget request included a proposal to decommission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital icebreaking services throughout the Great Lakes and northeastern states, including my home state of Maine. While I understand that the age of this vessel class may require some action by the agency, it would be premature to decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard has identified a means to assure their domestic icebreaking mission requirements are fulfilled. The Coast Guard has identified seven waterways within Maine that would suffer a meaningful degradation of service if these tugs were decommissioned. These waterways provide transport routes for oil tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo ships. The costs would be excessive to the local communities should that means of transport be cut off. As we have seen during recent winters, ready access to home heating fuel in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast is a necessity. As such, the bill I am introducing today includes a measure that would prevent the Cost Guard from removing these tugs from service unless adequate replacement assets are in place. Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. Of the 39 worldwide naval fleets, the United States Coast Guard has the 37th oldest fleet of ships and aircraft. This year the Coast Guard will embark on a major recapitalization for the ships and aircraft designed to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the ``system-of- systems'' procurement strategy the Coast Guard has proposed. This bill authorized funding for the first year of this critical long-term recapitalization program. This is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this bill. I know that my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, McCain, Hollings, Breaux, Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine, also look forward to moving the bill to the Senate floor at the earliest opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2001 and I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by my friends and colleagues Senators Mikulski and Harkin. Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney. The Women's Health Office Act of 2001 provides permanent authorization for Offices of Women's Health in five Federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC; the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, AHRQ; the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA; and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Currently, only two women's health offices in the Federal Government have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Office for Women's Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA. For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly understood, and women were systematically excluded from important health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. Another federally funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is a leading cause of death among women. Today, Members of Congress and the American public understand the importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical research and health care services. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. As cochairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, CCWI, Representative Pat Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry Waxman, called for a GAO investigation, in the beginning of 1990, into the inclusion of women and minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health Equity Act, WHEA, in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical research, prevention and services. Three years later, Congress enacted legislation mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, P.L. 103-43. Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, language based on my original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 101st Congress. Yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a long way to go on women's health care issues. Last May, the GAO released a report, a 10-year update, on the status of women's research at NIH, ``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research''. This report found that since the first GAO report and the 1993 legislation, NIH had made significant progress toward including women as subjects in both intramural and external clinical trials. However, the report noted that the Institute had made less progress in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO found that NIH researchers would include women in their trials--but then they would either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no difference was found, they would not publish the sex-based results. NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in clinical trials and has implemented several changes to improve the accuracy and performance for tracking and analyzing data, but our commitment to women's health is not about quotas and numbers. It is about real scientific advances that will improve our knowledge about women's health. At a time when we are on track to double funding for NIH, it is troubling that the agency has still failed to fully implement both its own guidelines and the Congressional directive for sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be shortchanged by Federal research efforts. The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite that fact that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing the focus on women's health in offices that do not have this legislative mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary or Agency Director. Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and they have been successful in making Federal programs and policies more responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future years. Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several reasons. First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on women's health. Second, it ensures that agencies will enact congressional intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that appropriations will be available in future years to fulfill these commitments. By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific, legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies, and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will ensure the presence of offices dedicated to addressing the ongoing needs and gaps in research, policy, programs, education and training in women's health. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Harkin, and me in supporting this legislation to help ensure that women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2001 and I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by my friends and colleagues Senators Mikulski and Harkin. Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney. The Women's Health Office Act of 2001 provides permanent authorization for Offices of Women's Health in five Federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC; the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, AHRQ; the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA; and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Currently, only two women's health offices in the Federal Government have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Office for Women's Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA. For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly understood, and women were systematically excluded from important health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. Another federally funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is a leading cause of death among women. Today, Members of Congress and the American public understand the importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical research and health care services. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. As cochairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, CCWI, Representative Pat Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry Waxman, called for a GAO investigation, in the beginning of 1990, into the inclusion of women and minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health Equity Act, WHEA, in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical research, prevention and services. Three years later, Congress enacted legislation mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, P.L. 103-43. Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, language based on my original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 101st Congress. Yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a long way to go on women's health care issues. Last May, the GAO released a report, a 10-year update, on the status of women's research at NIH, ``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research''. This report found that since the first GAO report and the 1993 legislation, NIH had made significant progress toward including women as subjects in both intramural and external clinical trials. However, the report noted that the Institute had made less progress in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO found that NIH researchers would include women in their trials--but then they would either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no difference was found, they would not publish the sex-based results. NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in clinical trials and has implemented several changes to improve the accuracy and performance for tracking and analyzing data, but our commitment to women's health is not about quotas and numbers. It is about real scientific advances that will improve our knowledge about women's health. At a time when we are on track to double funding for NIH, it is troubling that the agency has still failed to fully implement both its own guidelines and the Congressional directive for sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be shortchanged by Federal research efforts. The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite that fact that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing the focus on women's health in offices that do not have this legislative mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary or Agency Director. Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and they have been successful in making Federal programs and policies more responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future years. Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several reasons. First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on women's health. Second, it ensures that agencies will enact congressional intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that appropriations will be available in future years to fulfill these commitments. By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific, legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies, and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will ensure the presence of offices dedicated to addressing the ongoing needs and gaps in research, policy, programs, education and training in women's health. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Harkin, and me in supporting this legislation to help ensure that women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation. Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000 lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 mariners in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects thousands of other people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial fishing activities, and recreational boating. The Coast Guard enforces Federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, the Coast Guard provides a critical component of the nation's defense strategy. The Coast Guard has joined with the Navy under the National Fleet Policy Statement to integrate their complementary offshore assets and enhance our national defense. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 was enacted on November 13, 1992 and authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. Last year, I spend a considerable amount of time trying to enact meaningful legislation to reauthorize the Coast Guard. To that end, the Commerce Committee and the Senate unanimously passed the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000 in July of 2000. Unfortunately, final enactment of the bill was derailed by one provision that had nothing to do with the Coast Guard itself and was outside the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. As a result, the dedicated and hard-working men and women in uniform were penalized. The Coast Guard deserves more. By introducing the Coast Guard bill today, I intend to give them my full support, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the support that they have so clearly earned. For the second year in a row, the Coast Guard has announced that it will reduce routine non-emergency operations by at least 10 percent. The Administration's Budget request for fiscal year 2002 would leave the Coast Guard $250 million short in critical operating funds. This shortfall will necessitate operations cutbacks to include decommissioning ships and aircraft. The budget authorized in this bill would restore those funding shortfalls and prevent the need for operational cutbacks. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today authorizes funding and personnel levels for the Coast Guard in fiscal years 2000 through 2002. The bill authorizes funding for FY 2002 at $5.2 billion. This represents a 9.3 percent increase over the levels contained in last year's Senate-passed bill authorization and a 14 percent increase over the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The bill also contains several provisions to provide greater flexibility on personnel management matters and critical readiness concerns within the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard bill contains a new initiative on fishing vessel safety training. Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous professions in the United States. Over the last three years, over two hundred fishermen have died at sea and even more fishing vessels have been lost. Last year, the Maine fleet tragically lost ten fishermen. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to work with and support local organizations that promote or provide fishing vessel safety training. Under this proposal, active duty Coast Guard personnel, Coast Guard Reserve, and members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary could serve as instructors for training and safety courses; assist in the development of curricula; and participate in relevant advisory panels. This new initiative allows discretionary participation by the agency on a not- to-interfere basic with other Congressionally mandated missions. A major part of the Coast Guard's law enforcement mission remains interdicting illegal narcotics at sea. In 2000, the Coast Guard seized 56 vessels and arrested 201 suspects transporting illegal narcotics headed for our shores. The U.S. Coast Guard set a cocaine seizure record for the second consecutive year by stopping 132,920 pounds of cocaine from reaching American streets, playgrounds, and schools. The Coast Guard also seized 50,463 pounds of marijuana products, including hashish and hashish oil. At $4.4 billion, the street value of the drugs seized last year nearly matched the entire Coast Guard budget. In 2000, the Cost Guard also introduced the highly successful Operation New Frontier force package, including specially armed helicopters, over-the-horizon pursuit boats, and the use of non-lethal tools to stop go-fast type smuggling boats. Operation New Frontier forces documented an unprecedented 100 percent success rate by seizing all six of the go-fast trafficking boats detected. This bill provides funding to maintain many of the new drug interdiction initiatives of the past few years. The Coast Guard has proven time and again its ability to efficiently stem the tide of drugs entering our nation through water routes. The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for preventing and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year. The recent oil spill in the fragile Galapagos Islands is an example where our investment in the Coast Guard reaped international rewards. Within 24 hours of the spill, a team of Coast Guard oil spill professionals were on transport aircraft en route to the spill scene with cleanup equipment. Their presence limited the ecological damage of this potentially horrific environmental tragedy. One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking services. The FY 2000 budget request included a proposal to decommission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital icebreaking services throughout the Great Lakes and northeastern states, including my home state of Maine. While I understand that the age of this vessel class may require some action by the agency, it would be premature to decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard has identified a means to assure their domestic icebreaking mission requirements are fulfilled. The Coast Guard has identified seven waterways within Maine that would suffer a meaningful degradation of service if these tugs were decommissioned. These waterways provide transport routes for oil tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo ships. The costs would be excessive to the local communities should that means of transport be cut off. As we have seen during recent winters, ready access to home heating fuel in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast is a necessity. As such, the bill I am introducing today includes a measure that would prevent the Cost Guard from removing these tugs from service unless adequate replacement assets are in place. Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. Of the 39 worldwide naval fleets, the United States Coast Guard has the 37th oldest fleet of ships and aircraft. This year the Coast Guard will embark on a major recapitalization for the ships and aircraft designed to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the ``system-of- systems'' procurement strategy the Coast Guard has proposed. This bill authorized funding for the first year of this critical long-term recapitalization program. This is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this bill. I know that my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, McCain, Hollings, Breaux, Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine, also look forward to moving the bill to the Senate floor at the earliest opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send up amendment No. 741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a sense of the Senate amendment in support of the provisions in the bill that expand and extend the child tax credit to millions of working families. I am joined in offering this amendment by Senators Lincoln, Jeffords, Chafee, DeWine, Kerry, Dodd, Rockefeller, Collins, Domenici, Smith of Oregon, and Wellstone. The RELIEF Act doubles the maximum child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child and extends it by making it partially refundable for 15 cents on every dollar earned above $10,000. These provisions were incorporated in the bill during the Senate Finance Committee markup on a bipartisan basis and, together, these provisions will extend the benefits of the child tax credit to more than 55 million children nationally, as well as 37 million families. Without refundability, almost 16 million of these children would not be eligible for an increased benefit. The overwhelming majority of these children--almost two-thirds--live in working families. This amendment demonstrates our commitment to the child tax credit provisions in this package. I urge support of the amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan tax cut package which passed the Finance Committee on Tuesday. I first want to thank and commend Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for working so closely together to build a principled consensus one that not only brings this pressing issue to the floor in a timely fashion, but will also ultimately benefit the people of this nation. They have worked tirelessly for a fair and balanced tax cut bill, and I believe they have achieved that goal. Inevitability, none of us will agree with everything in this bill. Some will wish we had done more, some less. But that is the sign of true compromise. It is not about any one of us getting everything we would like. It's about making a judgment as to whether the preponderance of the measures in a given bill works for the good of the country. That is how the process should function--however difficult that process may be, and however much it may require us as individuals to compromise on facets of the bill we would prefer to be different. We cannot allow the gears of the deliberative process to become jammed with the monkey-wrench of absolutism. This is not the time to retreat into the false haven of ideological absolutes. Especially in these perilous economic times, we cannot let personal or partisan differences get in the way of passing a fair and meaningful tax cut. Of course we have an obligation to speak our minds and to make changes where and when we can. But we also have an obligation to heed the warning signs our economy is sending. I think everyone has probably had the opportunity to read at least a number of the myriad articles on the state of the economy. One Business Week article spoke of a terrible first quarter, stating that ``the earnings of the 900 companies on Business Week's Corporate Scoreboard plummeted 25 percent from a year earlier . . . The first quarter profit plunge was the Scoreboard's sharpest quarterly drop since the 1990-91 recession.'' Productivity fell at a 0.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter-- the first quarterly drop in 6 years. And layoffs are at their highest levels since they were first tracked in 1993, with major corporations announcing more than 572,000 job cuts this year. Little wonder, then, that the unemployment rate has risen to 4.5 percent, with April's job loss the largest since February 1991. Even more ominous is Business Week's recent observation that if wide layoffs of high wage earners continue, the likelihood of recession becomes even greater. And the Washington Post noted recently that Federal Reserve cuts in interest rates have been the most aggressive since the second quarter of 1982--the worst recession since the Great Depression--and that observation came before the most recent half-percent rate cut. We cannot ignore these economic storm clouds that may portend negative consequences for American workers as well as our economic future. And while it is true that a tax cut may not actually prevent a recession, if one is in the offing, I well remember the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who came before the Finance Committee in January. Chairman Greenspan stated that tax cuts, while perhaps not having an immediate effect, could act as ``insurance'' should our recent downturn prove to be more than an inventory correction . . . that it could soften the landing and shorten the duration of any recession should it occur. Again, there are ominous clouds on the horizon, and let's keep this in mind as well--``blue chip'' economists have indicated just this week that they are factoring the tax cut in their projections. In fact, if there is one concern I have with this package, it's that, given our growing economic uncertainty and the grim repercussions it could have, we need to do even more this year to get money into the hands of taxpayers and to get the economy back on track. I know there is an ongoing discussion about whether the best way to do this is to adjust the withholding tables as this bill envisions, or to issue checks directly to taxpayers. In the end, I think that whatever method best gets this into taxpayers hands--be it accelerated withholding, sending checks, or a combination of the two--is an imperative and I would urge the conferees to develop such a plan as they craft the conference report. The fact of the matter is, the case for cuts has never been more compelling--it's an issue of our economic health and well-being, and it's an issue of fairness for the American taxpayer--who shouldered the burden of the debt and created the surplus in the first place. As a percent of GDP, Federal taxes are at their highest level, 20.6 percent, since 1944--and all previous record levels occurred during time of war or during the devastating recession of the early-1980s, when interest rates exceeded 20 percent and the highest marginal tax rate was 70 percent. The fact of the matter is, it would be irresponsible not to return a reasonable portion of the surplus--which is really just an overpayment in the form of taxes--to the American taypayer. And there should be no mistake--if we fail to pass a meaningful relief package, we will fail both working families and the economy upon which their work depends. And let us not forget that this package is nearly 25 percent smaller than was proposed by President Bush in his budget. Let us not forget that it will utilize less than one-half of the projected surplus over the coming 10 years, 45.7 percent, excluding both Social Security and Medicare surpluses. In fact, even with a $1.25 trillion tax cut over the coming ten years, we will still have about $1.5 trillion available for other priorities, including the funding of a new prescription drug benefit and additional debt reduction. Mr. President, this package is neither unreasonable nor irresponsible. As to the issue that's been raised of ``backloading'' the tax cuts in this bill, as the chart behind me demonstrates, the structure of the tax package is phased-in to reflect the flow of surpluses projected to accrue over the coming ten years. Specifically, during the first 5 years, when the non-Social Security and non-Medicare surpluses are smaller, the tax cut is also smaller. In later years, as the surpluses grow, the tax cut grows as well. The alternative is to phase-in the tax cuts more rapidly and dip into the Social Security and Medicare surpluses--not an option at all in my book. Just as importantly, many of us fought hard to ensure that the benefits of this tax cut package will be weighted toward those who need relief the most--middle and lower-income taxpayers. We have before us a thoughtful proposal that addresses concerns I, myself, had with the distributional effects of the original package. And it does so in a variety of meaningful ways--retroactively creating a new ``10 percent'' bracket . . . providing much-needed AMT relief for middle-income families . . . and ensuring marriage penalty relief for all couples while bolstering the Earned Income Tax Credit program by providing $22.5 billion over the duration of the package. And we didn't stop there. The bipartisan education package that the Finance Committee reported in March is included in this bill, along with a new deduction of up to $5,000 for higher education tuition paid, and a new credit of up to $500 for interest paid on student loans-- provisions that I have sought along with Senators Torricelli and Schumer. With the cost of college quadrupling over the past 20 years--a rate nearly twice as fast as inflation--and with students borrowing as much during the 1990s as during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s combined, these provisions will provide critical assistance to individuals and families grappling with higher education costs. It also includes the bipartisan IRA and pension package--introduced separately by Senators Grassley and Baucus that will not only strengthen and improve access to pensions and IRAs, but also enhance fairness for women who frequently leave the workforce during prime earnings years, and suffer from reduced retirement savings accordingly. And finally, no package could truly be said to produce fairness without including a refundable child tax credit. That is why I worked with Senators Lincoln, Jeffords, Kerry and Breaux--as well as both the chairman and ranking member--to include a provision that builds on the President's proposal to double the $500 per child tax credit by making it refundable to those earning $10,000 or more, retroactive to the beginning of this year. This is introducing a wholly new concept with respect to that child tax credit, and one that is most assuredly warranted. For the first time we will provide and expand benefits to minimum wage earners. How will this help? In its original form, the tax relief plan would not have reached all full-time workers--the tax reduction would have disappeared for wage-earners with net incomes of less than about $22,000. Indeed, without refundability, there are almost 16 million children whose families would not benefit from the doubling of the Child Tax Credit. To give an idea of how many children we're really talking about, that is about twice the population of New York City or about 13 times the entire population of my home state of Maine. Thanks to the changes we have made, the bill now provides a substantial tax credit to a total of 37 million families and 55 million children nationwide who might otherwise have gained no benefit from the proposal to simply double the per-child credit. Many of these are families earning minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet in addition to paying their share of State and local taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, phone taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. All told, the average full-time worker earning the minimum wage pays more than $1,530 in payroll taxes, and more than $300 in Federal excise taxes. This is no small burden to working families already living on the fiscal edge. In fact, despite America's strong economy, one in six children live in poverty, and the number of low-income children living with a working parent continues to climb. My provision that is included in this bill to make the child tax credit refundable will give these families a hand up as they strive for self-sufficiency, and give these kids the hope of a childhood without poverty. The partially refundable credit will provide a benefit of up to 15 cents for every dollar earned above a $10,000 per year threshold. In real terms, this year, a working family with one child and an income of $13,000 would be eligible for a refundable credit of $450; and a family with an income of $14,000 would qualify for the full $600 credit. As tax reductions and the child tax credit are phased in over 10 years, the maximum allowable refundable credit will rise from $500 to $600 this year, increasing to $1,000 by 2011. Families with more than one child would also receive a refundable credit based on their income. Will this tax relief solve all the financial problems faced by eligible families? No. But it will help to purchase essentials, like groceries, heating fuel, or electricity. And it sends an important message of encouragement that we want those who work hard and strive to improve their lives to succeed. Refundability shows that tax relief is for all full-time working families. With these kinds of adjustments, we take a critical first step in ensuring that the balance of this package in its totality will help lower and middle income taxpayers. In fact, in looking at the various analyses of the changes we made to the package, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that those earning less than $50,000 will see their share of Federal taxes drop from 14.3 percent under current law to 13.8 percent in 2006. Indeed, the largest reductions in the effective tax rates will apply to those in the $20,000 to $40,000 range. Conversely, in 2006--the fifth year of implementation--the share of federal taxes paid by those with incomes of $100,000 or more will increase from 58.4 percent to 59 percent. Moreover, as a result of the refundability of the child tax credit, according to Joint Tax, those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income range will see their share of federal taxes reduced from 1.5 percent to 1.3 percent--a reduction of $3 billion. And by 2006, this level is down to 1.1 percent. If you look at upper income brackets, and I know there are those who still have concerns with the top one percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, this gives 19 percent of tax cuts to the top one percent who pay 37 percent of taxes, as opposed to 31 percent in the President's original package. And in terms of the overall package, it is worth noting that creation of the new 10 percent bracket alone accounts for $438.6 billion, while reductions in all other brackets amount to $397.3 billion--that's 52 percent of the cuts going to the lowest bracket, with 48 percent going to all others. At the same time, the share of federal taxes paid by those with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 will fall from 27.3 percent to 27.1 percent--and from 14.3 percent to 13.8 percent for those earning under $50,000. So yet again we've seen a shift in the weighting of the bill away from benefits for the higher income brackets. As for the compromise we developed that results in a reduction of the uppermost bracket from 39.6 to 36 percent, it is worth noting that many individuals in that bracket are small business owners whose business- related income is taxed as personal income. According to the Treasury Department, in 2006, 63 percent of the tax returns that would benefit from reducing marginal rates in the top two brackets would be reporting some income or loss from a business. And in my home state of Maine, for example, about 97 percent of all businesses are small business. The reality is, small businesses have played a central role in our nation's economic expansion. From 1992 to 1996, for example, small firms created 75 percent of new jobs--up 10.5 percent--while large- company employment grew by 3.7 percent. So why--when we're talking about such a tremendous impact on individuals and the economy . . . when the top corporate tax rate is 35 percent--why should we continue making small business men and women pay so much more? I think the American public often thinks about tax cuts the way they would think of winning the lottery it would be great if it really happened, but it in reality it really only happens for ``the other guy'' . . . that tax cuts will only apply to someone else . . . and if they do happen, they'll be so small as to have no appreciable effect on everyday life. Well, the American people should know that this tax cut applies to everyone, and especially those who could use the break the most. And that's true not just on paper, but in reality--in the real world. For example, a married couple with two children and $15,000 in income will pay no income tax. They will receive $4,008 from the earned income tax credit--an increase of $402--and a benefit from the expanded per- child tax credit of $600. That is over $1,000 extra in their pocket-- that's going to mean a lot to that family making $15,000 a year. The point is, this is no phantom tax cut--this is real, this is balanced, and this is fair. And what this all comes down to is, if you are really serious about cutting taxes, you should support this package that begins the process of providing some relief given, once again, the status of our economy and the tax burden on the American people. We know we are never going to get unanimity on an issue of this magnitude. But we can have progress and we can come to some kind of consensus. This package represents a bipartisan effort that, in the aggregate, is good for our future and good for the American taxpayer today. And it deserves our support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support Distribution Act. This is companion legislation to Congresswoman Nancy Johnson's bill in the House. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kohl for his leadership on child support issues; I am delighted to have been able to team up with him again in this important area. I also want to thank Senator Bayh for his leadership on family issues. I am pleased that we could work together and incorporate each of our ideas in vital legislation which we have already introduced, the Strengthening Working Families Act. I am also pleased to have Senators Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockfeller, Breaux, Lincoln, Bayh as original cosponsors on this bill. There is no question that children are the very future of our country and I believe fundamentally that every child has the right to grow up healthy, happy, and safe. Throughout my career, promoting children's well-being and keeping our children safe is a mission that has been close to my heart. While we cannot expect the government to ensure that every child receives parental love and attention, we can ensure that the custodial parent, not the government, receives this vital financial support. Ending poverty and promoting self-sufficiency is an on-going national commitment. Five years ago Congress restored welfare to a temporary assistance program, rather than a program that entangles and traps generation after generation. In September 2000, there were 5.7 million open TANF caseloads for individual recipients, down from 12.2 million, a 53 percent reduction, in August 1996 when Welfare Reform became law. Unfortunately, while we are succeeding in promoting self-sufficiency and self-reliance through welfare reform, we are sending out a double- edged message on the need to pay child support. Current law regarding the assignment and distribution of child support for families on welfare is extremely complicated, depending on when families applied for welfare, when the child support was paid, whether that child support was for current or past-due payments, and depending on how the child support was collected, in other words, through direct payments, through garnishing wages or other government assistance programs, or the federal income tax return intercept program. The ``Child Support Distribution Act of 2001'' would provide more child support money to families leaving welfare; would simplify the rules governing the assignment and distribution of child support collected by States; would improve the collection of child support; and would authorize demonstration programs encouraging public agencies to help collect child support; and provide guidelines for involvement of public agencies in child support enforcement. Under current law, when child support is collected for families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, the money is divided between the state and federal governments as payment for the welfare the family has received. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act gave states the option to decide how much, if any, of the state share of child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send to the family. The 1996 Welfare Reform law also required that in order to qualify for TANF benefits, beneficiaries must ``assign'', or give their child support rights to the state for periods before and while the family is on welfare. This means that the State is allowed to keep, and divide with the federal government, child support arrearages that were owed even before the family went on TANF if they are collected while the family is receiving welfare benefits. The original intent of these assignment and distribution strategies was to reimburse the state and federal governments for their outlays to the welfare family. But how much sense does it make to tell a family that is on welfare or trying to get off welfare that the State is entitled to the first cut of any child support payment, even if the absent parent begins to pay back the child support that was owed before the family went on welfare? This means that the state gets the support before a parent can buy new shoes for her child, before she can buy her child a new coat for the approaching winter, before she can buy groceries for her family, or pay the rent for the next month. So in the real world, not just a policy-oriented world, our current law regarding child support payments provides a disincentive for struggling parents to leave welfare, and it certainly provides no incentive for the absent parent to pay, much less catch up with, their child support bills. I wonder how we can realistically expect to foster a positive relationship between a custodial parent, and the parent paying child support, when the State is entitled to all of the support money. The key provisions of the bill I am introducing today will allow states to pass through the entire child support collected on their behalf while a person is on welfare; will change how and when child support is ``owed'' to the states for reimbursement for welfare benefits; and will expand the child support collection provisions such as revoking passports for past-due child support. We must ensure both non-custodial and custodial parents that child support payments are directly benefitting their children. This bill will enable families to keep more of the past-due child support owed to them and it will further the goals of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by helping families to remain self-sufficient. This bill will give mothers leaving welfare an additional $4 billion child support collections over the first five years of full implementation. It will also lead to the voluntary payment by states of about $900 million over five years in child support to families while they are still on welfare. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. And, when appropriate, we need to help parents financially support and provide for their children. Because it simply makes little sense to ask people to be self-sufficient, to pay their child-support bills, and then to allow the State to collect all of that child-support. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this bill and pass it this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support Distribution Act. This is companion legislation to Congresswoman Nancy Johnson's bill in the House. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kohl for his leadership on child support issues; I am delighted to have been able to team up with him again in this important area. I also want to thank Senator Bayh for his leadership on family issues. I am pleased that we could work together and incorporate each of our ideas in vital legislation which we have already introduced, the Strengthening Working Families Act. I am also pleased to have Senators Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockfeller, Breaux, Lincoln, Bayh as original cosponsors on this bill. There is no question that children are the very future of our country and I believe fundamentally that every child has the right to grow up healthy, happy, and safe. Throughout my career, promoting children's well-being and keeping our children safe is a mission that has been close to my heart. While we cannot expect the government to ensure that every child receives parental love and attention, we can ensure that the custodial parent, not the government, receives this vital financial support. Ending poverty and promoting self-sufficiency is an on-going national commitment. Five years ago Congress restored welfare to a temporary assistance program, rather than a program that entangles and traps generation after generation. In September 2000, there were 5.7 million open TANF caseloads for individual recipients, down from 12.2 million, a 53 percent reduction, in August 1996 when Welfare Reform became law. Unfortunately, while we are succeeding in promoting self-sufficiency and self-reliance through welfare reform, we are sending out a double- edged message on the need to pay child support. Current law regarding the assignment and distribution of child support for families on welfare is extremely complicated, depending on when families applied for welfare, when the child support was paid, whether that child support was for current or past-due payments, and depending on how the child support was collected, in other words, through direct payments, through garnishing wages or other government assistance programs, or the federal income tax return intercept program. The ``Child Support Distribution Act of 2001'' would provide more child support money to families leaving welfare; would simplify the rules governing the assignment and distribution of child support collected by States; would improve the collection of child support; and would authorize demonstration programs encouraging public agencies to help collect child support; and provide guidelines for involvement of public agencies in child support enforcement. Under current law, when child support is collected for families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, the money is divided between the state and federal governments as payment for the welfare the family has received. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act gave states the option to decide how much, if any, of the state share of child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send to the family. The 1996 Welfare Reform law also required that in order to qualify for TANF benefits, beneficiaries must ``assign'', or give their child support rights to the state for periods before and while the family is on welfare. This means that the State is allowed to keep, and divide with the federal government, child support arrearages that were owed even before the family went on TANF if they are collected while the family is receiving welfare benefits. The original intent of these assignment and distribution strategies was to reimburse the state and federal governments for their outlays to the welfare family. But how much sense does it make to tell a family that is on welfare or trying to get off welfare that the State is entitled to the first cut of any child support payment, even if the absent parent begins to pay back the child support that was owed before the family went on welfare? This means that the state gets the support before a parent can buy new shoes for her child, before she can buy her child a new coat for the approaching winter, before she can buy groceries for her family, or pay the rent for the next month. So in the real world, not just a policy-oriented world, our current law regarding child support payments provides a disincentive for struggling parents to leave welfare, and it certainly provides no incentive for the absent parent to pay, much less catch up with, their child support bills. I wonder how we can realistically expect to foster a positive relationship between a custodial parent, and the parent paying child support, when the State is entitled to all of the support money. The key provisions of the bill I am introducing today will allow states to pass through the entire child support collected on their behalf while a person is on welfare; will change how and when child support is ``owed'' to the states for reimbursement for welfare benefits; and will expand the child support collection provisions such as revoking passports for past-due child support. We must ensure both non-custodial and custodial parents that child support payments are directly benefitting their children. This bill will enable families to keep more of the past-due child support owed to them and it will further the goals of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by helping families to remain self-sufficient. This bill will give mothers leaving welfare an additional $4 billion child support collections over the first five years of full implementation. It will also lead to the voluntary payment by states of about $900 million over five years in child support to families while they are still on welfare. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. And, when appropriate, we need to help parents financially support and provide for their children. Because it simply makes little sense to ask people to be self-sufficient, to pay their child-support bills, and then to allow the State to collect all of that child-support. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this bill and pass it this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes on this amendment.